Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

johnny karate said:
The math on that is pretty simple: As of January 31st, there was a surplus of $121 million for the fiscal year, and now there is a shortfall of $137 million. To address this shortfall, this "budget repair" bill is currently trying to be jammed through the state legislature.


Again, the math is simple. See above.
Click to expand...

Yes the math is simple. They are facing a massive shortfall, the short term short fall is minor compared to the overall and he is doing what he was elected to do.

I agree with
Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl
Well I tried, and I can't find anywhere that Scott Walker pointed at this year's budget as the reason for the bill. All I can find is him talking about the $3B+ two-year deficit that's projected. People who are saying that he spent/taxcut $150M or so as an excuse to pass this bill, please provide a link where he actually makes any such excuse..
Click to expand...

He did put the provisions in this bill budget repair bill instead of a separate bill but that is done all the time by all parties. He had the votes to pass a separate bill also.
The Wisconsin legislature is doing what they were elected to do.

I think that when the last budget occurred they had a billion dollar short fall and that was covered with a quick bill to raise taxes. (Of course my source for that was the interview with the governor himself that was posted in this thread. Politicians have been known to stretch and twist the truth.)
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes. It's true. Walker is just on of many Pubs in power that are doing their best to destroy unions.
Click to expand...
And the unions are doing their best to destroy the budgets of actual working families, who could only dream of the deal the public employees are getting.

Walker wants them to contribute 12.5% to their pensions? Oh, the humanity!

Public sector unions have done as much damage to state budgets as the Wall Street bankers. The state of Illinois has an $80 billion funding deficit for our state workers pensions, we can't ever fire anyone, the state payroll keeps expanding even as our population drops by millions. I hope Walker succeeds before they destroy Wisconsin like they have Illinois.

Who the **** represents the taxpayers when these deals are struck with the unions?
 
novice skeptic said:
Question for Ginger, since she keeps quoting Maddow as a source on this subject: Any reaction to Politifact's calling Maddow's "There is no budget crisis" report a total falsehood?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/
Click to expand...

As long as you're willing to comment on the fact that the same site has labeled Mr. Walker's comments that collective bargaining will be left "fully intact" under his plan as a blatant LIE?!?:mad:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...sin-gov-scott-walker-says-his-budget-repair-/
 
thaiboxerken said:
It seems like this is what the guv wants to pay them.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a teacher in Wisconsin makes? I don't but I doubt if they are the downtrodden?
Do you know that collective bargining is not being taken away for wages in the bill?

ETA
I just glanced at the bill I am not so sure that this is true. As usual it is difficult to understand the bill at a glance.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Cite please.
Click to expand...
I already did. Illinois, for example, is $80 billion in the hole as far as pension funding. That's $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in Illinois. Know what Gov. Quinn did just before the election? Guaranteed no unionized state employees would be laid off for the next 2 years.

So guess where the budget gets balanced? Once again, on the backs of everyone else. The employees unions are untouchable, a special elite who must be shielded at all costs from the economic realities everyone else has to deal with.

You should see the pension sweeteners and early retirement deals the government unions get here.
 
Last edited:
That's not a cite, it's a claim. Furthermore, it doesn't demonstrate that "public sector unions have done as much damage to state budgets as the Wall Street bankers".
 
johnny karate said:
That's not a cite, it's a claim. Furthermore, it doesn't demonstrate that "public sector unions have done as much damage to state budgets as the Wall Street bankers".
Click to expand...
Here's your cite:
While the state estimates its unfunded liability will approach $80 billion this fiscal year, Joshua Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, thinks a more accurate figure is nearly double that.

When the state pension funds project how much they will owe retirees, or their liability, they convert the sum into today's dollars, figuring those dollars will be invested and provide annualized returns in line with the fund's stated investment goals, most of which are near 8 percent.

Rauh believes the state should peg its plan, instead, to risk-free returns such as those provided by Treasury bonds. In assessing the liability levels of the state's three biggest funds last year, he used a range of rates, from 2.7 percent to 4.5 percent.

"You can't pretend you can get 8 percent without risk," Rauh said. "It's asking future generations to come up with payments when the stock market does poorly, and that's a time when they are hurting the most."
Click to expand...
Even the best-case scenario $80 billion pension deficit is more than 3 times the size of Illinois' $25 billion annual budget. The financial crisis didn't do that amount of damage here.
 
Newtons Bit said:
That said, I don't think there should be unions doing collective bargaining agreements for pay/benefits in the public sector. Something of it smacks of a serious conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Newtons Bit said:
Because the person who negotiates against them does not have the motivation of keeping costs down. His/Her motivation is to get reelected. And the unions give giant amounts of campaign contributions to those that help them out. That gives said politician a big boost in getting reelected.

I greatly appreciate unions for their importance in helping workers historically and for modern day worker protection stuff. But in todays political landscape they are a landmine of trouble.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
And the unions are doing their best to destroy the budgets of actual working families, who could only dream of the deal the public employees are getting.

Walker wants them to contribute 12.5% to their pensions? Oh, the humanity!

Public sector unions have done as much damage to state budgets as the Wall Street bankers. The state of Illinois has an $80 billion funding deficit for our state workers pensions, we can't ever fire anyone, the state payroll keeps expanding even as our population drops by millions. I hope Walker succeeds before they destroy Wisconsin like they have Illinois.

Who the **** represents the taxpayers when these deals are struck with the unions?
Click to expand...
Why should not taxpayer expense be subject to taxpayer approval?
Put public union contracts to public approval.
 
novice skeptic said:
Question for Ginger, since she keeps quoting Maddow as a source on this subject: Any reaction to Politifact's calling Maddow's "There is no budget crisis" report a total falsehood?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/
Click to expand...
:D What do you know? It just so happens I already posted on the Maddow numbers. How about that? :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger said:
I found the article that has budget numbers reliable enough Politifact used them to resolve the question of Rachel Maddow's report on her Fri show. I'm sure Rachel will retract any erroneous numbers she gave when she comes back on Monday.
Click to expand...
Maddow usually does correct her errors on her follow up shows.

I agree we need to be careful echoing conclusions from our own political side and I'm more interested in the truth than some political dogma. I don't agree the right is likely to reconsider their conclusions when more evidence comes to light. Fox News purposefully echos the right wing spin, accuracy is not a goal.

I will wager that Maddow corrects herself, or at least addresses Politifact's review, as evidence of my assertion.


I have also seen some on the left in this forum repeat conclusions that new evidence may require should have been reconsidered. But I am not one of them even though people often wrongly pigeonhole everyone on the other side of the political isle from themselves.


So getting back to the assertions that need to be supported: This fiscal year's shortfall was ~$137 million and wasn't directly caused by Walker's tax breaks for business which don't go into effect in the current fiscal year. But the tax breaks do affect the next 24 month fiscal cycle and the breaks do make the need to take drastic actions against the unions look more justified. And the unions have agreed to the financial concessions making Walker a liar when he claims the restrictions on union rights were necessary.

Carlvs kindly posted the link for us on Politifact's opinion of Walker's claims. Maddow just got a "false" rating. Walker got a "Liar liar pants on fire" rating.

I think, regardless of getting some of the details wrong, the gist of the accusation, Walker is using his position to weaken unions for political and not financial reasons, is supported by the evidence.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And the unions are doing their best to destroy the budgets of actual working families, who could only dream of the deal the public employees are getting.
Click to expand...
Or so says the unsupported right wing spin.



WildCat said:
Walker wants them to contribute 12.5% to their pensions? Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...
Oh the humanity, the unions agreed. Got any evidence Walker tried to get these concessions through the established collective bargaining process and the unions refused?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:D What do you know? It just so happens I already posted on the Maddow numbers. How about that? :rolleyes:

Maddow usually does correct her errors on her follow up shows.

I agree we need to be careful echoing conclusions from our own political side and I'm more interested in the truth than some political dogma. I don't agree the right is likely to reconsider their conclusions when more evidence comes to light. Fox News purposefully echos the right wing spin, accuracy is not a goal.

I will wager that Maddow corrects herself, or at least addresses Politifact's review, as evidence of my assertion.


I have also seen some on the left in this forum repeat conclusions that new evidence may require should have been reconsidered. But I am not one of them even though people often wrongly pigeonhole everyone on the other side of the political isle from themselves.


So getting back to the assertions that need to be supported: This fiscal year's shortfall was ~$137 million and wasn't directly caused by Walker's tax breaks for business which don't go into effect in the current fiscal year. But the tax breaks do affect the next 24 month fiscal cycle and the breaks do make the need to take drastic actions against the unions look more justified. And the unions have agreed to the financial concessions making Walker a liar when he claims the restrictions on union rights were necessary.

Carlvs kindly posted the link for us on Politifact's opinion of Walker's claims. Maddow just got a "false" rating. Walker got a "Liar liar pants on fire" rating.

I think, regardless of getting some of the details wrong, the gist of the accusation, Walker is using his position to weaken unions for political and not financial reasons, is supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...


I have zero problem saying that Walker is lying on this one.
 
Wasn't it Abe Lincoln who once asked "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make a leg."

Just sayin'............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom